Out of 13,950 only 23 article peer reviewed articles dispute Man Made Climate Change

Really where do they admit that? And more importantly is the data analysis showing that AGW is not happening?

 

1. The paper is not on the list.
2. Dickerson was a "co-author" and the lead author (Roger Pielke Sr.) never made any such claims.
3. Roger Pielke Sr. never contacted me requesting that the paper be removed.
4. I directly responded to Dickerson in the comments and in my rebuttal,

flame bait/insult removed

 

Hmmmm - there is a awful lot of entries on the internet saying that Roger Pielke complained about that list

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.html?showComment=1328334126565

 

No that is not a dodge but a direct response, as one could not characterize every paper as "supporting a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm" since skeptics would never cite the papers you are implying to support their arguments.

This is a dishonest ad hominem. The list is very real and the papers very peer-reviewed. All of your intellectually dishonest and desperate attacks is proof positive of how much of a threat your consider the list. Anyone reading this can see how desperate you are to keep anyone from reading the papers on the list.

More dishonest ad hominems as I have never misled anyone. First of all the lead author of the paper Dickerson co-authored never contacted me, second the paper is not on the list anymore but the reasons have nothing to do with his strawman arguments.

Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. - "Better Recheck That List"

The paper in question is,

Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gases
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 45, pp. 413, November 2009)
- Roger Pielke Sr. et al.

It does not include any of the following phrases or words,

man-made (Ironically Roger Pielke Jr. criticized my use of this word as "not scientific")
substantial
danger
human health

While Professor Dickerson may believe these things the paper he coauthored does not make those arguments.

The paper was not listed as "skeptical" but as, "supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm".

Regardless, Pielke's three year old post has no relation to the current version of the list.

Nope, I admitted alarmist arguments are not objective.

Wrong, the IPCC explicitly said that they cannot specify a 90% range, "The lack of strong constraints limiting high climate sensitivities prevents the specification of a 95th percentile bound or a very likely range for climate sensitivity."

Not at all, in most cases a skeptic has already used the paper to support a skeptic argument. Since the author is not making the argument that is being supported their views are irrelevant in this context.

I have not heard 3 C argued as low climate sensitivity by any prominent skeptics.

These are all strawman arguments.

This is all dishonest ad hominems. Spencer's religious views have nothing to do with his scientific views on climate change and was refuted here,

Guilt by Association (Patrick J. Michaels, NRO, May 9, 2012)

Lindzen is skeptical of exaggerated claims about second-hand smoke. Both are highly credentialed climate scientists,

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978 ); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

Spencer is well published in the peer-reviewed literature with over 20 papers on the list and he has refuted all criticisms of his papers.

Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960); S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961); Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964); Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965); NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow, Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966); Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967); Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967); NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967); AMS Meisinger Award (1968 ); Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972); Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978 ); AGU Macelwane Award (1969); Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976); Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983); Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975); Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979); Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983); Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983); AMS Charney Award (1985); Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985); Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present); Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992); Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993); Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-Present); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

Lindzen who is an ISI Highly Cited Researcher has published extensively in the peer-reviewed literature and lists 240 papers on his CV.

Spencer has rebutted the Dessler paper,

My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study (Roy W. Spencer, September 2011)

Still referencing the laughing stock of the Internet, SS? Lindzen extensively addressed the criticisms of his work in his 2011 paper and references them. The paper was published in a peer-reviewed science journal indexed by the ISI,

Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences is a peer-reviewed science journal (ISSN: 1976-7633)
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) Science Citation Index lists the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences as a peer-reviewed science journal

Strawman, I already said that some of the low climate sensitivity estimates would fall within the very low end range of the IPCC estimates and made no claim about the uncertainty bounds. None of which changes the fact that alarmists like yourself would never cite Schwartz as a sensitivity estimate that you would endorse. Lindzen has refuted all criticisms of his work.

The tooth fairy has nothing to do with ACC/AGW Alarm. It has already been established that alarmist arguments are not objective.

I have never spammed or hijacked any thread. I directly respond to dishonest individuals like yourself who post lies, misinformation and strawman arguments about my work.

Analogy fail, the climate has nothing to do with car batteries or starters.

Papers that show natural drivers of climate in the past support skeptic arguments that nature still drives the climate. Skeptics do not support your arguments relating to feedbacks and past climate change.

I have no idea why you keep citing the Internet laughing stock SS. All the papers on the list, "support skeptic arguments". For instance all the ones from the MWP all support skeptic arguments that the MWP existed and that it was global not regional.

Only for the mean not the high end of a climate sensitivity range. Skeptics argue that the IPCC exaggerates climate sensitivity and argue for a "low climate sensitivity". To support these arguments the criteria needs to fall below the low end of the IPCC range. You asked for it to be defined and now it is.

Why would I remove papers that are still cited or based on your strawman argument?

[Schwartz 2007] is still cited for example by [Cathles 2012].

I updated the Criteria for Removal,

Criteria for Removal: Papers will only be removed if it is determined by the editor that they have not properly met the criteria for inclusion or have been retracted by the journal. No paper will be removed because of the existence of a criticism or published correction.

Your declarations that a paper is, "obsolete", "outdated" or "refuted" or what is "relevant" is meaningless conjecture and will never be taken into account so get over it. Tell all you SS friends too.

More dishonest ad hominems. The views of the authors are their own. The views of the skeptic who is using a paper to support their argument is their own as well. I've never argued with an author about their views in relation to their paper. I've only ever argued if the paper can be used to support a skeptic argument. In each case the author was making a strawman argument and distorting the actual use of the paper.

You are free to repeat this nonsense to yourself but your long rant filled posts show just how dangerous you believe the list is to your zealotry.

Dodge. You did not answer the question, Does the IPCC cite fake journals?

All I factually claimed is that E&E is cited by the IPCC, I never made your strawman argument that it is cited more than "Nature". I am well aware Nature is cited in a much larger quantity than E&E in the IPCC reports.

So you consider 5,587 times "small"? (Hint: E&E was not counted as one)

Does the ISI include grey literature in its Social Sciences Citation Index?

E&E is cited multiple times not once. Are you claiming the IPCC reports are unreliable? You cannot have it both ways.

That is your meaningless opinion. "Quality" is subjective and citation count does not determine quality, all it can show is popularity.

Strawman, I said it was not published as peer-reviewed but as a "Viewpoint" (opinion piece).

Wrong paper. That is a reappraisal of the [Soon & Baliunas 2003] paper from Climate Research. The categories do not reflect the peer-review status of a paper.

The fact that it failed peer-review and could not be published as such speaks to the quality of the peer-review process at E&E.

"Just for info, the people i asked did not think much of Oliver's ideas and complained that he has no evidence and mainly cites himself. Hence his paper could not be published as peer reviewed, but as a viewpoint." - Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment

It was also published in a peer-reviewed science journal, [Manuel et al. 2002]

Who denies that there has not been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age?

She never back tracked, the context of what she stated was dishonestly distorted to smear her. You cannot find any quote from her referring to party politics.

What is the editor's political ideology in relation to party politics?

What an intellectually dishonest person you are. She makes no references to "flat-earters" or any of your other dishonest strawman arguments. She explicitly mentions the field of climate science, "I now believe that in a subject as new, complex and poorly understood as climate science and climate history over geologic time ...all voices should be published and debated." She also makes no claim that the papers should not be peer-reviewed. You apparently believe that "peer-review" is supposed to prevent publication of analysis and theories you disagree with. "Peer-review" is not supposed to be a gate keeping tool like you and your alarmist buddies want it to be, it is supposed to make sure things like the math is correct, scientific arguments are supported by data and sources ect... If peer-review worked how you wish, new ground breaking papers would never get published if they went against the prevailing opinions of the gate keepers.

She is entitled to her opinion which does not include your strawman arguments.

There is no dependency that implies any contradiction. Strawman again, I never claimed the sources said it was meaningless but rather biased and manipulated. I personally claimed it is meaningless as all such subjectively created metrics of "quality" are.

Declaring it more "objective" or "balanced" does not make it so.

That is not a strawman but a fact - citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity. Getting all your buddies to cite your paper does not make it scientifically valid. It is only a red flag to people who believe popularity equates to scientific validity.

Strawman, I have never made any argument that those papers are cited more than the most cited ones from Nature.

I don't know who a "denier" is but Curry is not a skeptic,

The Truth about Judith Curry

Don't you have a reliable news source for your dishonest ad hominems?

Find a reliable news source and quote his actual views but you are so intellectually dishonest you never look for the truth. There is no hypocrissy, you are doing exactly what I claim,

The Truth about SourceWatch

"SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.

Must be nice to live in denial.

 

That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. So finding a lot of alarmists all citing the same outdated and refuted blog post from Pielke Jr. means what exactly?

I love the idiotic irony as alarmists NEVER cite Pielke Jr. because his papers do not support their views.

The rest of that garbage has been refuted for a long time,

Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "Poptart's 450 climate change Denier lies"

 

Just posting "no it isn't" is not enough of a rebuttal when the dodges and misrepresentations are clear enough to convince anyone who takes time to really look at that list

I went through that list myself some years back and your "list" has the same misrepresentation that the Oregon Petition has - papers are included because they do not support "alarm" and yet the way it is promoted it gives the impression that the papers refute AGW

honesty is always the best policy

 

Look at this, so much for the lies peddled by alarmists,

"UPDATE 3/3/13 The owner of the list mentioned in this post emails and provides a comment below notifying me that the paper was finally removed." - Roger Pielke Jr.

 

What? The IPCC SRES is specifically addressing warming relating to anthropogenic emissions AKA "AGW".

I've added another rebuttal to the charge of publication bias,

It is falsely claimed that only climate skeptic articles are published in E&E,

IPCC SRES Revisited: A Response
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 2-3, pp. 187-214, May 2003)
- Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Arnulf Grübler, Stuard Gaffin, Tae Tong Jung, Tom Kram, Tsuneyuki Morita, Hugh Pitcher, Keywan Riahi, Michael Schlesinger, P. R. Shukla, Detlef van Vuuren, Ged Davis, Laurie Michaelis, Rob Swart, Nadja Victor

Emissions Scenarios: A Final Response
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 1, pp. 11-24, January 2004)
- Arnulf Grübler, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Joe Alcamo, Ged Davis, Joergen Fenhann, Bill Hare, Shunsuke Mori, Bill Pepper, Hugh Pitcher, Keywan Riahi, Hans-Holger Rogner, Emilo Lebre La Rovere, Alexei Sankovski, Michael Schlesinger, R.P. Shukla, Rob Swart, Nadejda Victor, Tae Yong Jung

Comment on "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods" by ernst-georg beck
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 635-641, September 2007)
- Harro A.J. Meijer, Ralph F. Keeling

There is no evidence that they will not publish both sides of an argument as the above examples clearly show otherwise.

 

I was making a general comment about the pages and pages of "rebuttal" which boil down to "no I didn't" and not just here on discussion board after discussion board - across the net - and as far as I can determine few if any who actually look at that list come away with anything but a sense that it is a a scam

And this is my point - you are using the literary equivalent of a "shell game" or an advertising trick. The IMPRESSION is that this is a list refuting AGW whilst the reality is that this is a simple list of research papers surrounding AGW which may or may not say anything at all about the subject

Tell me then how does this paper about one deep ocean species which form calcium carbonate "support a sceptic argument about AGW alarm" (remembering that first you have to show there is "Alarm")

Or this one which again accepts AGW but concentrates on only one portion of the problem and then has a lot of "maybe" within the synopsis - how does that paper "support a sceptic argument about AGW alarm"?

And these were just the first two, taken at random and again there is also the misdirection being used in relation to the total numbers - your subtopics range from sea-level rise to rebuttals of documentaries and is so broad you might as well rename your list as "1100+ Possibly peer reviewed papers supporting every aspect of possible environmental impact in relation to ACC/AGW Alarm" And because it is so broad 1100+ papers are a minuscule number of the total that could be put into each section

But the REAL "fail" in all of this? After over 10 years of arguing climate change on boards like this I can count the number of sceptics who actually reference ANY papers let alone academic ones on the fingers of one hand, or if I stretch it maybe two.

Why? Because all the rest LOOKED at the academic papers out there and started digging around and realised that even though there are still contentions in some of the science in some of the papers the main central concept is well documented and established - and concerning

 

Do you not understand what we've been debating for 4 days? The difference between the temperature measured and temperature they estimated. Not using the temperature measured, believing it to be inaccurate, and instead estimating what they believed to be the actual temperature.

 

This is pure lies. Name any argument from any of my rebuttal that boils down to any such thing. What you find consistently across the Internet in relation to the list is alarmist attempts at poisoning the well with your type of lies. I have NEVER had a skeptic or intellectually honest individual ever claim it was a "scam", only desperate alarmists like yourself who do not want skeptics referencing the peer-reviewed literature. I have seen the complete opposite online, where I find intellectually honest individuals grasp the classification of the list very quickly.

I am doing no such thing and there is no evidence of me EVER doing any such thing. Where does the list say or has it ever used the word "refute"? Your illiteracy in not being able to read is not an argument nor is your strawman "impressions". It is clear you cannot successfully attack the list for what it says so you wildly distort and create these dishonest strawman arguments to fight against. The reality is there is an extensive amount of peer-reviewed papers that supports skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm.

Which papers? Am I supposed to read your mind?

Which paper was not peer-reviewed? Misdirection? Wrong, the total number is completely accurate and the papers directly relate to the categories they are placed in. Are you claiming "sea-level rise" and the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" are not part of the debate? The papers are not "supporting a possible impact" but supporting a "skeptic argument" against the possible impact. If there are so many more papers that fit this criteria, name them.

Your personal experience arguing on certain boards is meaningless conjecture, my experiences are the complete opposite. I have found that many skeptics have been told by dishonest individuals like yourself that these papers do not even exist,

"I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line."

- John H., Comment at RealClimate.org

 

Within the realm of the relevant sciences, AGW is like evolution - established, uncontroversial, pretty well understood. And indeed, AGW like evolution underwent a period of considerable knowledgeable skepticism, accompanied by alternative testable proposals. And in both cases, the alternatives failed the tests while the tests served to provide ever more solid support for both.

Finally, as is so often the case with people, denial of AGW like evolution has moved out of the realm of science and into the realms of politics and religion (and money). These denials have become an identity, a creed, the heart of communities of like-thinkers.

 

This thread has been closed early because it has dissolved into multiple mutual rule violations.

If you want to continue the discussion, please start a new thread to do so.

ALL members should note, though, that they should discuss the topic, and NOT bait and insult each other, or otherwise violate the forum rules.

Cenydd
Site Moderator